Mark Duggan.

[Workingman]

An uncomfortable verdict and possibly a catalyst for more riots?

From the BBC:

The panel of seven women and three men was asked to answer five questions:

*In the period between midday on 3 August 2011 and when state amber was called at 6.00 pm on 4 August 2011, did the Metropolitan Police Service and the Serious Organised Crime Agency do the best they realistically could have done to gather and react to intelligence about the possibility of Mr Duggan collecting a gun from Mr Hutchinson-Foster? The jury said a unanimous no.

*Was the stop conducted in a location and in a way which minimised, to the greatest extent possible, recourse to lethal force? Unanimous yes.

*Did Mr Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the stop? Unanimous yes

*How did the gun get to the grass area where it was later found? A majority of 9 to 1 said it was thrown.

*When Mr Duggan received a fatal shot, did he have the gun in his hand? A majority of 8 to 2 said no, he did not have a gun in his hand.

According to the jury the police did not use the best intelligence or follow best practice to prevent the collection of the gun in the first place. It concluded that the gun was thrown from the vehicle (by someone) as it was stopped. It also concluded that Duggan was not holding a weapon (gun) when he was shot dead.

How, then, could it conclude that he was legally killed?

I hope that the jury's conclusion does not lead to more trouble.

[TheOstrich]

From all I've seen and heard, I think I would have backed an Open Verdict (which was the line the two jurors took). I think too much of the evidence was contradictory or implausible; there was supposedly one witness 8 stories up in the tower block or whatever.

The Guardian has published the official juror's report here:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/inte ... -full-text

I don't "condone" Duggan who seems to have been a career petty criminal, but I can fully understand the anger of the Duggan family at the perceived injustice of the verdict which seems rather contradictory in itself.

Regarding the Police, I think I saw on the BBC report that the number of stop and searches in Haringay had decreased to something like 340 a month (correct me if that's wrong). Now that's over 10 a day - in one London Borough. It was something like 40 a day two years ago. Quite honestly, I believe the Metropolitan Police are totally out of order on this stop and search policy.

[Workingman]

The numbers for SaS in Haringhey in October were 666: 341 were non-white. According to the last census 65.3% of the population in the borough is made up of non-white British Ethnic Groups. If the police pulled in a random selection of people for SaS the majority would be 'non-white'.

[pederito1]

Not a very desirable character but that does not give the police any right to murder him. Far too many street executions by them.

[Workingman]

I read that PM Cameron and Duggan's family have all called for "no more violence" and for the courts to be "allowed to do their job".

That has to be right, but it is also an indication of how high feelings are. Hopefully the calls will be heeded, on all sides. However, the police are caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea on this one and might have to tough out some low-level disturbances in order to let things cool down.

[cromwell]

On the one hand he was a criminal riding around London with a loaded pistol, so tough luck.
On the other, the police evidence about why he was shot is unconvincing in the extreme. If you throw the gun away before you get out of the taxi, you can't be armed when you are shot.
The officer who shot him said he thought Duggan was holding a gun covered in a sock, which is why he shot him. When the gun was recovered 20 ft away from the body, it was indeed covered in a sock - but if he had already thrown it away..? And if something is covered with a sock, how do you actually know it's a gun anyway? It's very implausible.

I think the officer "saw" what he was expecting to see, not what he actually did see.

[Workingman]

The IPCC, police watchdog, has apologised to Mark Duggan's family for "wrongly" telling the media he had fired at police before he was shot.

It might also consider apologising to the people of the UK for helping to create the situation that eventually led to the riots. Saying that Duggan fired a shot, without a shred of evidence to prove it, was inflammatory especially when there were witnesses from the community to claim otherwise.

This social network driven attitude of saying something, often for the sake of it, has to stop.